Obama Administration Seeks To Block Wiretap Suit

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Obama Administration Seeks To Block Wiretap Suit stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

DEVLIN BARRETT | 10/30/09 08:58 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?
Eric Holder

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department invoked the state secrets privilege Friday to try to stop a lawsuit over Bush-era wiretapping – the first time the Obama administration has done so under its new policy on such cases.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced the decision in a California lawsuit challenging the warrantless wiretapping program begun after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Under the state secrets privilege, the government can have a lawsuit dismissed if hearing the case would jeopardize national security.

The Bush administration invoked the privilege numerous times in lawsuits over various post-2001 programs, but the Obama administration recently announced a new internal review process in which more senior Justice Department officials would make such decisions.

Holder said that in the current case, that review process had convinced him "there is no way for this case to move forward without jeopardizing ongoing intelligence activities that we rely upon to protect the safety of the American people."

To proceed with the case, Holder said, would expose intelligence sources and methods.

He also said U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is handling the case, had been given a classified description of why the case must be dismissed so that the court can "conduct its own independent assessment of our claim." Holder said the judge would decide whether the administration had made a valid claim and "we will respect the outcome of that process."

During the Bush administration, government lawyers resisted providing specifics to judges handling such cases about what the national security concerns were.

Kevin Bankston, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group in San Francisco that is pursuing a similar lawsuit against the government, called Holder's decision "quite disappointing."

"The Obama administration has essentially adopted the position of the Bush administration in these cases, even though candidate Obama was incredibly critical of both the warrantless wiretapping program and the Bush administration's abuse of the state secrets privilege," said Bankston.

Last month, the administration said it will try to curb the use of such claims in the future by setting a higher bar for invoking the privilege.

Under the new approach spelled out by attorney general, an agency trying to keep such information secret would have to convince the attorney general and a panel of Justice Department lawyers that its release would compromise national security.

In the past, such government claims of state secrecy required a lower standard of proof that the information was dangerous, as well as the approval of fewer officials.

While the Obama administration has created a new system for reviewing such cases, it has continued to assert the state secrets claims in all the remaining cases left over from the Bush administration.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department invoked the state secrets privilege Friday to try to stop a lawsuit over Bush-era wiretapping – the first time the Obama administration has done so unde...
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department invoked the state secrets privilege Friday to try to stop a lawsuit over Bush-era wiretapping – the first time the Obama administration has done so unde...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
266
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last » (6 pages total)
- duxguts I'm a Fan of duxguts 22 fans permalink
photo

More of that hopey changey thing again.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 PM on 10/31/2009
- LALAW I'm a Fan of LALAW 30 fans permalink

Many of you responding to this article either didn't read the article, or don't understand the implications. It very well could be that the continuation of this suit would compromise valid government procedures. One important change is that a judge will ultimately decide whether prosecution of the suit would compromise national security, or if the executive branch is only using the privilege to cover improper government activity.
Certainly everyone understands that our citizens should receive whatever protection our government can provide within the framework of the Constitution.
The Republicans are playing hardball. They have a vision for this country that is diametrically oposed to everything you believe in. While I agree with the progressive position 100% of the time, I also understand that many people don't share my life experience or world view. In order for this country to survive (and very possibly the world) we have to develop policies that are supported by a majority of our citizens. I trust Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama to use the power they hold in a way more closely attuned to my way of thinking than any administration in my lifetime.
I'm not ready to take my marbles and go home. To the contrary, I appreciate the hard work these folks are putting in to turn this country around. If they don't proceed smartly, they can win some battles that are important to me, but lose our nation forever to the right wing crazies.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 PM on 10/31/2009
- Artemis34 I'm a Fan of Artemis34 131 fans permalink
photo

Very hard to be pragmatic about our constitutional rights.

If we shred the constitution, exactly what are we protecting? Corporate interests?

I'm not surprised by this though. Sen. Obama voted for the so-called PATRIOT Act and telecom immunity for crimes they committed b/4 the PATRIOT Act. So, this would not be inconsistent.

D@mn sight better than all the Republican administrations back to N!xon? No doubt whatsoever.

Just sad.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:59 AM on 11/01/2009
- RTIII I'm a Fan of RTIII 81 fans permalink


That's right: "You don't have to be any good to be the best."
.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:50 AM on 11/01/2009
- Artemis34 I'm a Fan of Artemis34 131 fans permalink
photo

We had FISA judges viewing evidence that could compromise national security, the evidence used to establish probable cause.

How would this be more insecure than the FISA judges?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:19 PM on 11/01/2009
photo

Eric Holder to prosecute the criminals on Wall Street but wire tapping is okay.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:22 PM on 10/31/2009

If Obama wants another vote from me, here's what he can do:
- Lobby to get a public option (he's been pretty quiet)
- Get us out of the 2 wars we have no business being in
- End illegal wiretapping and surveillance
- Stop claiming he's for the people when all I've seen him do is give billions to corporations
- Take a stance on Don't ask don't tell
- Quit trying to promote bipartisanship with a party that is out of their minds
- Instead of signing an executive order that makes waterboarding,etc. illegal only while he his president, ask that congress pass a bill so torture is considered ALWAYS illegal, including for any future president that wants to be a f.ascist
- Investigat­­e/prosecu­t­e the former administration members who broke the law
- Close Gitmo

There it is. THAT is real change. So far Obama has pandered, and halfheartedly pushed the ideals that he campaigned on. If a good portion of this list is not done, I will not support Obama again.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:09 PM on 10/31/2009
- SamKnause I'm a Fan of SamKnause 69 fans permalink

That is an excellent list. I would like to add legalize the growing of hemp and decriminalize marijuana.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:53 PM on 10/31/2009
- Artemis34 I'm a Fan of Artemis34 131 fans permalink
photo

Yeah, but he didn't promise to do that.

At least he said prosecuting the use a medical marijuana would not be federal priority.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:20 PM on 11/01/2009
- Artemis34 I'm a Fan of Artemis34 131 fans permalink
photo

Actually isn't torture already illegal under the Geneva convention?

Check out how he is doing on the Obameter

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/browse/

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:01 AM on 11/01/2009
- kasinca I'm a Fan of kasinca 161 fans permalink
photo

I wish they would be more transparent at to why they defend these policies. There must be legal reasons and they should tell us.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:05 PM on 10/31/2009

There is an alternative to the assumed undisclosed legal reasons.

An alternative is the exercise of power in an irrational way just to prove that those with the power have it over those who do not.

Just think of all the hours wasted at the airports by American citizens taking off their shoes in compliance with a governmental mandate while the government has otherwise allowed millions of illegal aliens to cross the borders and compete for American jobs. Common sense should tell most people that the shoe inspection thing is a hoax while the unchecked foreign invasion is real.

The irrational exercise of power shows whose in charge.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:42 AM on 11/01/2009
- Artemis34 I'm a Fan of Artemis34 131 fans permalink
photo

Well, have to agree with a lot of inefficiency in airport security.

How 'bout not making US targets by not being a$$holes around the world?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:24 PM on 11/01/2009
- Artemis34 I'm a Fan of Artemis34 131 fans permalink
photo

I'm sure on some level they believe it is their obligation to defend the government side.

Just like on the outrageous defense of gay marriage ban. They were saying things like "We don't get to choose what laws we uphold..."

Which actually there is precedent for not defending laws that are unconstitutional and / or unjust. Clinton, for example, said he would not defend a law that would have punished service members for contracting AIDS.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:27 PM on 11/01/2009

Bush = BS. Obama = MS (more of the same). I will never vote RepubliKKKant, but I will darn sure blank ballot Obama in 2012 if he doesn't begin living up to his campaign.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:52 PM on 10/31/2009

This is a huge disappointment. Obama is maintaining the Bush secrecy policy.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:39 PM on 10/31/2009

Which now makes it his policy. Lets not forget that.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:12 PM on 10/31/2009
- rbryanh I'm a Fan of rbryanh 109 fans permalink

Sounds like there's no way to prosecute this offense without revealing that it's still going on.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:54 PM on 10/31/2009
photo

I am so tired of the states secret ,s thing

it only mean,s keep it secret from the people of America because they may not !!!! approve !!!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:30 PM on 10/31/2009
- mtrav I'm a Fan of mtrav 7 fans permalink

Deja vu all over again, might as well still have bush. This is pathetic.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:22 PM on 10/31/2009
photo

I am starting to agree !! very disappointing

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:32 PM on 10/31/2009
- wadenelson1 I'm a Fan of wadenelson1 225 fans permalink
photo

There's simply no Constitutional justification for warrantless wiretapping.

The government has 48 hours RETROACTIVELY to obtain a warrant. This means they could tap every phone and email in America, (as they probably do) and use the evidence they collect against someone to THEN GO GET THE NECESSARY WARRANT! It's not even "fruit of the poisoned tree!"

What POSSIBLE justification is there for eliminating EVEN THAT SINGLE SAFETY NET on the use of wiretaps?

America is STILL headed down a very bad road. We are not prosecuting war criminals, we are eliminating Constitutional protection against "unreasonable search and seizure," and our Congress is bought and paid for by corporations.

And the worst part is the majority of Americans are sitting still for it. They're watching American Idol when there should be NIGHTLY protests in DC.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:01 PM on 10/31/2009
- Matrsnot I'm a Fan of Matrsnot 22 fans permalink

Glad someone else sees what I see. Both parties (actually one) are corrupt. Tha goes from the congress to the president. All of them. I haven't seen this country this close to revolution since the 1960's. This time it is very serious and congress is pushing very hard to uproot the constitution and our freedom altogether. Has me worried some. The fanatics are causing the problems, but the real problem was created long ago when the government was sold to the bank.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:00 PM on 10/31/2009

I think everyone sees it. Whether they'll admit it or not is a different story.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:16 PM on 10/31/2009
- profproof I'm a Fan of profproof 3 fans permalink

Change you can believe in. Keep hoping koolaid drinkers

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:40 PM on 10/31/2009
- jhepp I'm a Fan of jhepp 5 fans permalink

Nothing to see here. Go back to your houses and buy American!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:33 PM on 10/31/2009
photo

I don,t have a home any more !! and with out a job can,t buy any thing let alone American made

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:25 PM on 10/31/2009
- Matrsnot I'm a Fan of Matrsnot 22 fans permalink

Bet you voted for Obama though.. Welcome to the false change you actually believed in. Believing in fairy tales costs us all on this one though.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:53 PM on 10/31/2009
photo

Scary part is past presidents had concerned for the good of the nation.

I've seen where this one came from.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:03 PM on 10/31/2009
- Artemis34 I'm a Fan of Artemis34 131 fans permalink
photo

Tell you Senator to support JUSTICE

S. 1686, the Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act

These changes [in S1686] to the PATRIOT Act and the FAA seek to protect the civil rights and privacy of law-abiding Americans while providing the government with the legal tools it needs to protect Americans from the threat of terrorism.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:25 PM on 10/31/2009
photo

Nix the Patriot act all together !!!!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:27 PM on 10/31/2009
- Matrsnot I'm a Fan of Matrsnot 22 fans permalink

Agree with you here. it is Unconstitutional and congress passed it without reading it, much like they are trying to do with healthcare.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:54 PM on 10/31/2009
- Artemis34 I'm a Fan of Artemis34 131 fans permalink
photo

That would be my first choice.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:30 AM on 11/01/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last » (6 pages total)

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect